[2025] FWC 799
Citation: [2025] FWC 799
What happened
the Applicant, a Team Leader Planner Roll Workshop at Paper Australia Pty Ltd, initially started as an apprentice in 1985. He previously had an informal flexible working arrangement (FWA) allowing adjusted start and finish times on Thursdays to manage childcare responsibilities. This arrangement ended when Paper Australia implemented an audit requiring compliance with the enterprise agreement. The Applicant then formally requested an FWA, which was rejected. The relevant enterprise agreement, the Opal Australian Paper Maryvale Mill Mechanical Maintenance & Engineering Store Enterprise Agreement 2024, includes clauses governing work hours and make-up time. The Applicant seeks an order that Paper Australia grant his FWA request.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission found that Paper Australia’s refusal to grant the Applicant’s flexible working arrangement request was not based on reasonable business grounds. The Commission considered Paper Australia’s argument that the request didn’t comply with the enterprise agreement and that the make-up time clause provided a suitable alternative. However, the Commission noted that the enterprise agreement includes a National Employment Standard precedence clause, meaning the NES prevails where it provides a more beneficial term. The Commission will issue orders to grant the Applicant’s FWA request.
What it means for employers
Employers should be aware that simply citing non-compliance with an enterprise agreement is not automatically a reasonable business ground for refusing a flexible working arrangement request. They need to demonstrate a likely business detriment if the request is granted. Offering an alternative like make-up time may not be sufficient if it creates financial hardship for the employee.
Want this applied to your situation?
Reading the decision is free. FairWork Mate goes further — it reads the full case library and applies precedents like this one to your specific facts, citing the cases as it reasons. General information, not a guaranteed outcome or legal advice.
Every statement above is drawn from the published decision. Read the original here:
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/pdf/2025fwc799.pdfWant more cases like this?
FairWork Mate tracks Fair Work Ombudsman, Fair Work Commission and Federal Court decisions across Australia. The AI advisor answers plain-English questions grounded on the full corpus — awards cited, industry, penalty amounts and affected employee counts — with a citation to the underlying decision on every answer.
Individual case summaries on this site are free. Full-corpus advisor access is a paid product — Business Solo from $99/mo, 50% off your first 3 months for the first 100 signups.
Get notified on new Fair Work cases
Free email alerts when we publish new underpayment decisions, penalty orders, and workplace law updates.
Free forever. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
This summary was drafted from the published decision and reviewed before publishing. It is general information, not legal advice. For your specific situation, speak to the Fair Work Ombudsman (13 13 94) or a qualified lawyer. About these summaries & corrections →